Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of spiral galaxies

:{{la|List of spiral galaxies}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_spiral_galaxies Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|List of spiral galaxies}})

This list is impossible to make comprehensive due to the vast number of spiral galaxies known (such a comprehensive list would nearly as long as all other Wikipedia articles combined, I'd guess). Aside from that, such information is better actually included in the articles themselves than in this list. Remember here, Wikipedia is not a directory. StringTheory11 (t • c) 00:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete – SDSS alone detected > 127 million spirals. Such a list is too big. SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 01:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete may as well just use the category for this. The list is too large to maintain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge into list of galaxies which could use a column to indicate the type of structure and which has a sensible approach of focussing upon the notable cases. Andrew D. (talk) 10:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Being too big/difficult to maintain are not valid reasons for deletion. The lists can easily be split A-Z if size is an issue. Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The list is not honest since there must be some other (unstated) criteria for inclusion than just being a spiral galaxy. (Not saying the editors are dishonest. I'm confident that they are sincere.) A reader would have no idea that these are only a few out of millions or billions. The List of galaxies gives a much better picture of the whole situation.Borock (talk) 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. As Graeme says above, this may as well be (and is at :category:spiral galaxies) a category. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

::Have a read of WP:CLN. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep we should have a list of spirals that are exemplary, representative, historical, or exceptional. That list can be called "List of spiral galaxies". We simply WP:EDIT the article. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 06:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:* I'm inclined to agree with this idea. I certainly think that an indiscriminate list of the millions of known spirals would be silly, but a list of highly resolved, or very notable, spiral galaxies would be acceptable, provided that the inclusion criteria were clearly stated in the list introduction. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

:*I can see the merit in this idea. Perhaps the list could be turned into something like list of quasars? StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep This is a reasonable, well-formed list-class article, per MOS:LIST. List-class articles are one of the preferred ways we organize articles on Wikipedia. After I removed the two non-notable entries, the inclusion criterion is pretty clear--to be on the list, the spiral galaxy must have an article, that is, be notable. Notability is the standard criterion for list-class articles. The article could be expanded with a better lead, but doing so is a matter of editing, not deletion. With a clear criterion for inclusion and a well-formed article, there are no policy based reasons for deletion, hence keep. --Mark viking (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:*Even if we were to limit the list to notable galaxies, it would still contain several thousand, which, while definitely better than over 100 million, is still rather large for a list. Remember, not all galaxies that meet our notability guidelines have their own articles yet. StringTheory11 (t • c) 22:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Keep With some editing, and clearly stated inclusion criteria, I don't think this would go against any policies. Currently, all galaxies on the list have articles - that's good! I find this better and more interesting than those useless minor planet lists. Cheers, AstroCog (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
• :Well that last statement goes without saying! :) But taking those to AfD would be a useless endeavor, I think, as we have too many editors who will do anything to preserve info on every minor planet that exists, so there's no way they will pass an AfD. StringTheory11 (t • c) 21:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Is the potential size of an article or our ability to "complete" said article, a criteria for inclusion?--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.